Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KECA 215 (KLR)

Jackson Moindi Ontegi & 2 others v Kisii County Government & 1 other

Court of Appeal of Kenya
5 February 2026
LKL. Kimaru
393 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal gave a late appellant extra time to file his appeal after the other side agreed, but he must pay the costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Kisumu delivered by L. Kimaru, JA on 5th February 2026, in an application under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules for extension of time to file and serve the record of appeal out of time. The applicant was aggrieved by a judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu delivered on 1st March 2023. He lodged his notice of appeal in time but failed to file the record of appeal within the sixty-day period prescribed by Rule 77(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. He attributed the delay to the negligence, inadvertence and professional lapse of his former advocates, and urged the court not to punish him for his advocate's mistake, contending that his appeal had high chances of success and that the respondent would suffer no prejudice. The respondent, through its Senior Litigation Counsel Moses Oirere, filed a replying affidavit taking the view that the applicant had not given sufficient reasons to warrant the exercise of discretion in his favour, but was not opposed to the applicant being given a chance to ventilate his appeal provided the applicant paid the costs of the application. Because the application was thus effectively conceded, the court allowed it. The applicant was granted fourteen days to file and serve the notice of appeal and forty-five days to file and serve the record of appeal, and was ordered to bear the costs of the application. The decision of the ELRC was not disturbed at this interlocutory stage.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time to file and serve record of appeal

Holding

The court allowed the application because it was conceded by the respondent, notwithstanding doubts about the sufficiency of the reasons for delay.

Reasoning

The applicant blamed his former advocates' negligence and professional lapse for the failure to file the record of appeal within the 60 days prescribed by Rule 77(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The respondent, while not persuaded that sufficient reasons were given, was not opposed to the applicant being given a chance to ventilate the appeal if the applicant bore the costs. Because the application was thus conceded, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 4 and allowed it with timelines.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an extension-of-time application under Rule 4 is conceded by the respondent, the court may allow it on that basis.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is allowed as conceded
  2. 2.Extension of time granted to file and serve the notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days
  3. 3.Record of appeal to be filed and served within forty-five (45) days
  4. 4.The applicant shall bear the costs of the application
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court, Kisumu
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jackson Moindi Ontegi & 2 others v Kisii County Government & 1 other", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/215/eng@2026-02-05

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.